HAYES (5/19/14): The most brutal PR train wreck in America got even more train wreckier this weekend. What has become a “can’t look away,” acrimonious battle between recently deposed New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson and the person who deposed her, the Times’ publisher and family heir, Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger. It keeps getting worse.

Other news outlets are furiously reporting on the Times. The Times is reporting on itself and Times employees are expressing support and dissent.

[...]

Joining me now, Emily Bazelon, senior editor at Slate, contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine, who knows Jill Abramson.

Emily, are you astounded at how ugly this entire thing has gotten? I just cannot believe, every day that passes, more leaks, more articles, more facts coming out. Sulzberger himself coming out to basically be like, “She was terrible.” It’s head-spinning. It’s gotten so bad and so public so fast.

Chris was giving us rubes our thrills, presumably as the suits wanted.

For better or worse, the train wreck seemed to get quite a bit less train wreckier during Hayes’ brief discussion with Bazelon.

Hayes was no longer reading from prompter. Soon, he seemed to agree with Bazelon—the astoundingly ugly train wreck has perhaps been overplayed:

HAYES: We have then seen, in the New York Times, David Carr, their media reporter, writing a column saying, “So I like Jill. My reporting, including interviews with senior people in newsroom, some of them women, backs up the conclusion of Sulzberger this was not about pay equity.” How do you make sense of this battle over whether pay equity was the issue?

BAZELON: I think David is right. I think the pay equity story is a sideshow and there was a lot of unrest and division at the New York Times, and discontent with having an editor who was really aggressive, brusque, whatever adjective you want to use.

It is also true that sometimes adjectives like that get used about women in a way that are different from men, but that doesn’t necessarily mean this was a sexist firing.

HAYES: So I think that is a really key point that everything seems over-determined here. It seems to me the possibility this is someone who had a whole lot of sexist expectations put on her and there were sort of sexist ways in which she was interpreted, and also had a manner that rubbed people the wrong way, and those two could actually both be true.

BAZELON: Yes, I think that’s right and to me it’s been important that we have not seen an uprising on the part of women of the New York Times.

HAYES: Yup.

BAZELON: There are a lot of women like me who are grateful to Jill. She was a tremendous promoter of women. But that doesn’t mean that people can’t see some of her weaknesses.

HAYES: Yes, Lydia Polgreen, who’s a deputy international editor, saying there has been no revolt. There have been many searching conversations, but no women’s revolt over Jill Abramson’s firing at the New York Times.

What happened to the can’t-look-away, head-spinning train wreck that Hayes “just cannot believe?” That train wreck seemed to exist on prompter, not in Hayes’ actual head.

At any rate, a funny thing happened during this interview. Bazelon and Hayes moved away from the idea that “pay equity” lay at the heart of this episode, in which “everything seems over-determined,” whatever that lingo means.

For ourselves, we have no idea why Arthur Sulzberger, who hired Abramson three years ago, decided to replace her. We don’t know how much she was being paid, or how her pay compared to that of her predecessor, Bill Keller.

We don’t know what Abramson thought about her level of pay. We don’t know what Sulzberger thought about her negotiations concerning pay.

Like almost everyone who has commented on this matter, we don’t know those things. We do know how the question of “pay equity” came center stage in the discussion of Abramson's plight.

Last night, Hayes and Bazelon moved away from “pay equity” as the reason for this dismissal. Quite plainly, though, this hypothesis came center stage through the error-strewn work of Ken Auletta, a high-status national journalist whose skin always strikes us as an ad for mud-packing Manhattan spas.

Soon after Abramson lost her job, Auletta went to work at The New Yorker’s site explaining the reasons for her dismissal. As is becoming increasingly clear, Auletta’s work on this topic has been extremely bad.

That said, his error-strewn work helps us see something important. It helps us see the way the news gets novelized in high-profile cases like this.

In a strikingly slippery way, he put the magic word “pushy” in quotes, although he never said who was supposed to have uttered the word in this case. See our previous post.

The magic word “pushy” jumped directly to Salon’s headlines. It was featured in a much-publicized post by Abramson’s daughter.

Judged by journalistic norms, Auletta’s promotion of the word “pushy” was remarkably slippery. He also made a factual error in that May 14 post, as we will note below.

Then, in a May 15 post, Auletta offered this account of the way Abramson was getting underpaid. At this point, “pay equity” went through the roof—and a second factual error occurred:

AULETTA (5/15/14): Let’s look at some numbers I’ve been given: As executive editor, Abramson’s starting salary in 2011 was $475,000, compared to Keller’s salary that year, $559,000. Her salary was raised to $503,000, and—only after she protested—was raised again to $525,000. She learned that her salary as managing editor, $398,000, was less than that of the male managing editor for news operations, John Geddes. She also learned that her salary as Washington bureau chief, from 2000 to 2003, was a hundred thousand dollars less than that of her predecessor in that position, Phil Taubman.

That is terrible journalism, in a wide array of ways (see below). But as we noted yesterday, that highlighted passage contained an outright mistake:

Whatever his pay may or may not have been, Taubman was Abramson’s successor as Washington bureau chief, not her predecessor. This error tipped the scales in the direction of the emerging novel, in which Abramson had been massively underpaid as compared to relevant men.

AULETTA (5/14/14): As with any such upheaval, there’s a history behind it. Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs. “She confronted the top brass,” one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was “pushy,” a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect. Sulzberger is known to believe that the Times, as a financially beleaguered newspaper, needed to retreat on some of its generous pay and pension benefits; Abramson had also been at the Times for far fewer years than Keller, having spent much of her career at the Wall Street Journal, accounting for some of the pension disparity. Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, said that Jill Abramson’s total compensation as executive editor “was directly comparable to Bill Keller’s”—though it was not actually the same. I was also told by another friend of Abramson’s that the pay gap with Keller was only closed after she complained. But, to women at an institution that was once sued by its female employees for discriminatory practices, the question brings up ugly memories. Whether Abramson was right or wrong, both sides were left unhappy. A third associate told me, “She found out that a former deputy managing editor”—a man—“made more money than she did” while she was managing editor. “She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.”

As Auletta has noted in his latest correction, that highlighted passage on May 14 referred to Geddes. Like the May 15 passage concerning Taubman, it was factually wrong. As noted above, Geddes was actually managing editor for news operations at the time in question, not a deputy managing editor.

That highlighted passage described a great injustice: Abramson, while a managing editor, was being paid less than a deputy managing editor!

Alas! In that May 14 post, Auletta was wrong about that. On May 15, he was wrong about Taubman too.

Question: Where does Auletta get all his misinformation? Why did he play such a slippery game concerning the magic word “pushy?” We can’t answer those questions, but anyone can see what was happening in his posts. A pleasing novel was being created, in which Abramson was name-called in a distinctive way and grossly underpaid as compared to males.

Whatever the actual truth may be, this was terrible journalism, of a familiar type. As a final note, let’s consider the hapless passage from Auletta’s May 15 post:

AULETTA (5/15/14): Let’s look at some numbers I’ve been given: As executive editor, Abramson’s starting salary in 2011 was $475,000, compared to Keller’s salary that year, $559,000. Her salary was raised to $503,000, and—only after she protested—was raised again to $525,000. She learned that her salary as managing editor, $398,000, was less than that of the male managing editor for news operations, John Geddes. She also learned that her salary as Washington bureau chief, from 2000 to 2003, was a hundred thousand dollars less than that of her successor in that position, Phil Taubman.

Murphy cautioned that one shouldn’t look at salary but, rather, at total compensation, which includes, she said, any bonuses, stock grants, and other long-term incentives. This distinction appears to be the basis of Sulzberger’s comment that Abramson was not earning “significantly less.” But it is hard to know how to parse this without more numbers from the Times. For instance, did Abramson’s compensation pass Keller’s because the Times’ stock price rose? Because her bonuses came in up years and his in down years? Because she received a lump-sum long-term payment and he didn’t?

And, if she was wrong, why would Mark Thompson agree, after her protest, to sweeten her compensation from $503,000 to $525,000? (Murphy said, on behalf of Thompson, that Abramson “also raised other issues about her compensation and the adequacy of her pension arrangements, which had nothing to do with the issue of comparability. It was to address these other issues that we suggested an increase in her compensation.”)

Would you hire a college senior who performed journalism that way? Consider these elements:

“Let’s look at some numbers I’ve been given.”

Auletta didn’t feel the need to explain who had given him the numbers or how he knew they were accurate. In this way, the most basic factual question was simply ignored.

For ourselves, we have no idea if those numbers are accurate. Assuming they are for the sake of this exercise, let’s continue assessing Auletta’s work:

In this passage, Auletta compares Abramson’s first-year salary in the executive editor post to Keller’s eighth-year salary in the post. Would such questions of seniority typically affect such salaries?

Like you, we have no idea. Auletta simply let this obvious question pass.

“Her salary was raised to $503,000, and—only after she protested—was raised again to $525,000.”

When was her salary raised to $503,000? After that, what did she protest about, and why was her salary raised that second time? The most obvious facts are omitted here. Whatever the truth of these matters might be, this is less a work of journalism than it is the gauzy world of fairy tale.

At this point, Auletta committed his groaner about Taubman, even as he corrected the previous day’s groaner about Geddes. He then moved ahead to this statement:

“But it is hard to know how to parse this without more numbers from the Times.”

We can’t “parse” anything about this at all until we get accurate numbers. Does Auletta have any accurate numbers? Like you, we have no way of knowing. Why should we assume his numbers are correct when he committed those factual groaners about both Geddes and Taubman?

Finally, pray for The New Yorker’s baby:

“And, if she was wrong, why would Mark Thompson agree, after her protest, to sweeten her compensation from $503,000 to $525,000?”

Truly, that’s just sad. Assuming that this “sweetening” did occur, there could be a thousand different explanations for it. Auletta gives parenthetical treatment to the Times’ denial of the pay equity hypothesis. As readers, we still don’t even know when these alleged salary bumps occurred.

In truth, Auletta’s work hasn’t been journalism. Through his errors and his slippery insinuations, he created a familiar, high interest novel, built on a familiar, high-interest theme.

His suggestions and claims may be perfectly accurate. But how is a reader to know?

By last night, Bazelon and Hayes were drifting away from the “pay equity” explanation. But at the outset of this high-profile story, this theme served Team Abramson’s interests, making an instant martyr of its embattled principal.

A familiar story had been crafted about her plight, built around a highly familiar theme. In truth, the plight of our second, younger woman was treated in a similar way.

At ProPublica, D’Leisha Dent was fashioned as a martyr to a familiar old nemesis, “segregation.” This made a pleasing morality tale.

In many ways, ProPublica’s reporting and advocacy were accurate and justified. But in the process, the astonishing academic profile of Central High’s senior class was largely disappeared.

If D’Leisha Dent can’t get into college, what in the world is going on with the lower ninety percent of her senior class? To tell you the truth, ProPublica didn’t seem to care a whole lot about that. Neither did The Atlantic.

Can we talk? D’Leisha Dent will not be discussed on the Chris Hayes program. Her plight will not be examined on your TV machine.

One of our two women this week is extremely high-status. Last night, Hayes and Bazelon pondered her plight in some detail.

D’Leisha Dent is not high status. In our view, her plight was novelized a bit too, at which point it disappeared!

Dent had ACT scores too low to permit her to be accepted at most of the colleges she might otherwise have been recruited by. Someone took pity on her at Miles, because of her athletics and her other obvious positive qualities. Or perhaps to entice her football playing boyfriend to attend there. It changes nothing about the situation for black students at Central High. Do you imagine that because Dent got into Miles it means everything is great at Central High and Somerby has no reason to complain about the focus of the Atlantic article?

Hello to every one out here, am here to share the unexpected miracle that happened to me three days ago, My name is Jeffrey Dowling,i live in TEXAS,USA.and I`m happily married to a lovely and caring wife,with two kids A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my wife so terrible that she took the case to court for a divorce she said that she never wanted to stay with me again,and that she did not love me anymore So she packed out of my house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get her back,after much begging,but all to no avail and she confirmed it that she has made her decision,and she never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my wife So i explained every thing to her,so she told me that the only way i can get my wife back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for her too So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow her advice. Then she gave me the email address of the spell caster whom she visited.(bravespellcaster@gmail.com}, So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address she gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my wife back the next day what an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my wife who did not call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that she was coming back So Amazing!! So that was how she came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and she apologized for her mistake,and for the pain she caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, i will advice you out there to kindly email this wonderful man {bravespellcaster@gmail.com},i f you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to "bringing your ex back. So thanks to Dr Brave for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}, Thanks..

You keep ignoring the many responses made to your complaint. Dent was offered by the Atlantic article as an example of someone who would not go to college -- Somerby didn't write that article. He is discussing that article and why it focused on segregation instead of poor education.

That scholarship offer to Miles College does nothing to change the problem -- that the other students at Central High were doing worse than Dent and that Dent herself could not earn high enough ACT scores to get college offers. That is true, whether she was ultimately accepted at Miles college or not. Her ACT scores are low. She did get accepted, but she did not get recruited and did not receive those letters from a variety of colleges. Nothing is changed about the substance of the report that she later accepted a scholarship (based on athletics). OMG, how do you keep missing the point over and over and why do you not read and understand the people trying to response to your complaints?

This is a triviality that has nothing to do with the topic of discussion. Somerby relied on the info presented by Hannah-Jones which was subsequently made obsolete by events in Dent's life -- that happens. Auletta on the other hand, is a journalist who is paid to get his information straight and he made blatant errors, wrong statements at that time he wrote them.

It is permissible to make inferences from the facts at hand without "novelizing." The act of novalizing bends the facts, omits or ignores facts or makes up facts in order to fit a preferred narrative. I did not do that. Neither did Somerby.

I think Somerby is generalizing when he says she couldn't get accepted, but he is not mistaken, nor is he "novelizing." Dent received no recruitment letters (based on Hannah-Jones report). She was accepted at Miles College because of her athletic performance -- that is stated in the article. Her ACT scores were too low for her to be accepted other places. That is a fact. I did speculate about the possibility that she was accepted in order to recruit her boyfriend, but I did express that as speculation, not fact. That is the difference between novelizing and speculating.

You have manufactured a big issue about this because you dislike Somerby, not because you care about truth or Dent. It is tiresome and wastes space. Once you make your point, please stop. There is no need to go on and on like this, especially when people do not agree with you.

She was not accepted based on her academics. She was offered a place at Miles based on her athletic performance. That is stated in Hannah-Jones's article. That is why Somerby is not mistaken. He is talking about her academic work, exemplified by her low ACT scores.

You are misusing language when you focus on the narrowest, most literal interpretation of a statement and ignore the larger meaning, obvious especially in the context of his posts.

Ah, I see. So Bob is still right to wonder "If D’Leisha Dent can’t get into college" because she didn't get into college in the manner that you think she should.

You are truly reduced to grasping at straws.

By the way, if you truly care about anything other than defending the indefensible, aren't you at least glad that Dent got into college? Or are you going to continue to imply that she really didn't deserve to, and is just another dumb jock?

"You are misusing language when you focus on the narrowest, most literal interpretation of a statement and ignore the larger meaning, obvious especially in the context of his posts."

WOW! The ultimate irony from one of Bob's most loyal sheep.

Hint fella: Nice case of projection there, but that is exactly Somerby's MO. Nit pick the word or prhase that doesn't meet his high standards, then go off for a month about it, while ignoring "the larger meaning."

After all, that could be a real traffic study, only bungled. And the charges against Gov. Ultrasound weren't really that big a deal.

@5:32 I don't know Dent. I don't know whether it is a good or bad thing that she is going to Miles -- I suppose it depends on how much they are charging her and her likelihood of finishing with a degree. I do wish her well.

I don't think jocks are dumb. I don't think Dent is dumb. I do think she is poorly educated and cannot perform academic tasks well enough to do well in a challenging curriculum. I think she has an uphill struggle ahead of her because her low ACT scores suggest she will have difficulty reading and writing at college levels.

Education is not something deserved or given to anyone. It is a process you engage in that changes you, if you put in the work, and prepares you to do challenging things later in life, if you decide to pursue them.

I am not the person who has invested a whole morning in proving Somerby wrong.

Wow! Another of the commentariat whose case against TDH is so weak that he has to resort to the tired trope that anyone who has a different opinion must be one of "Bob's … sheep."

When TDH objects to language, he doesn't nitpick the word choice. He objects to misrepresentation of some issue he finds important. Feel free to disagree with his judgment on these matters. I do. In the case of the article in which Ms Dent appears, TDH thinks that the emphasis on "resegregation" obscures a much more important issue, the failure of TCHS to prepare its students for higher education. Is he right? Why not make up your own mind on that issue, an important one, instead of whining about TDH's supposed faults as a language critic?

While you're being a stickler for honesty, maybe you could stop pretending that TDH claims that the Fort Lee traffic jam arose from some officially-sanctioned honest-to-goodness traffic study. Did the lane-closing clowns think they were studying something? Nobody knows. As TDH points out, that claim could be a ruse or a hoax, but that doesn't mean we know what was behind the closings.

If you've read the indictment against McDonnell, you'd know that his actions weren't really that big a deal. Even the prosecutors admit in their brief in opposition to McDonnell's motion to dismiss, that his actions weren't "substantial." They certainly weren't substantial enough to violate Virginia law. Of course, that doesn't mean Gov and Mrs Ultrasound didn't violate federal law. Maybe I'm just jaded: a governor of my state tried to sell a Senate seat.

Just for the record, I think TDH should correct his statement about DD. She did get into an accredited, four-year college, and he shouldn't say she can't when she already has. But it hardly affects TDH's point.

Just for the record, I think the conviction of the McDonnell's would help restore the karmic balance of the universe. Call it "when bad things happen to bad people."

He is hammering Hannah-Jones not for her inaccuracies but because she ignores the academic gap in performance and what that means for African American kids (not simply for Dent) and instead focuses on resegregation, as if that were responsible for the problems of Dent and the students who had worse performance than she did in Central High.

And you don't give a damn that it was reported that DENT GOT INTO COLLEGE! And that Somerby continues to write that she can't.

Good God, man. It's that simple, and Somerby can't be more wrong. Why is it so hard for you to see that?

And yes, before I would write anything from a source I don't entirely trust, then I would check it out. And all it took was googling Dent's name, and up came the story that she accepted a scholarship to a four-year college -- an opportunity that Somerby, to this day, apparently STILL doesn't know about, but others found within a matter of nanoseconds.

Why? Because Somerby is a lot like George W. Bush in that regard. He's got his mind made up. Don't bother him with facts.

And on that note, I wonder when Bob expressed his "surprise" that the WMDs were never found?

She can't. Her ACT scores are not high enough for her to be admitted to a college that uses such scores for admission. She got into an open admission college (see Cacambo's post elsewhere). Somerby is not wrong. You are wrong.

You're right. TDH couldn't be more wrong about a simple fact. DD did get into an accredited, four-year college, and TDH shouldn't say she can't when she already has. But this college accepts anyone who applies with a high-school diploma or equivalent. This is the only option available to TCHS' best, leaving TDH's point intact. Why is it so hard for you to see that?

The WPE had his mind made up because God told him he was right. He had to make up evidence to support his case when the real world intruded. If you think TDH is anything like that, I suggest you re-read a few Daily Howlers.

On April 22, one month after the WPE invaded Iraq, TDH said that he'd be surprised if Saddam didn't have WMDs. He was in numerous company, some good and some bad, including some of Saddam's top military commanders.

If people are going to say that this firing wasn't about gender but about personality, they have to explain how her personality was OK for so many years and only just now became an issue. She didn't turn pushy over night.

"The second thing I know from experience is why the charge of unequal pay — that Abramson reportedly alleged and Sulzberger vigorously disputed — landed with such force. I have managed at five organizations over nearly 20 years. At each of them I saw women paid less than men in what I thought were identical positions.

Was everyone lying who said they were committed to equal pay? I came to believe not. It was worse than that. It became clear that we saw things differently. I saw two people who, I believed, were doing the same work but being paid unequally. Those above me saw a story and a history, something that they thought caused the man to deserve higher pay: This one had just stepped down from a senior position and taken his higher pay with him. That one had been hired from a higher-paying organization. Yet another had been offered a job with a competitor. How many women in the past decade have been promoted past their peers, only to see in the spreadsheets the sad evidence that their own stories were apparently not as persuasive? "

Hello to every one out here, am here to share the unexpected miracle that happened to me three days ago, My name is Jeffrey Dowling,i live in TEXAS,USA.and I`m happily married to a lovely and caring wife,with two kids A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my wife so terrible that she took the case to court for a divorce she said that she never wanted to stay with me again,and that she did not love me anymore So she packed out of my house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get her back,after much begging,but all to no avail and she confirmed it that she has made her decision,and she never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my wife So i explained every thing to her,so she told me that the only way i can get my wife back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for her too So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow her advice. Then she gave me the email address of the spell caster whom she visited.(bravespellcaster@gmail.com}, So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address she gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my wife back the next day what an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my wife who did not call me for the past seven {7}months,gave me a call to inform me that she was coming back So Amazing!! So that was how she came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and she apologized for her mistake,and for the pain she caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster . So, i will advice you out there to kindly email this wonderful man {bravespellcaster@gmail.com},i f you are in any condition like this,or you have any problem related to "bringing your ex back. So thanks to Dr Brave for bringing back my wife,and brought great joy to my family once again.{bravespellcaster@gmail.com}, Thanks..

Considering some of the cartoons I've been seeing, including winners of the caption contest, not to mention the naming of Andy Borowitz as the resident humorist, it's a wonder David Remnick has kept his job...

...unless really funny cartoons and writers would too much hearken back to the early days of the magazine. Heaven forfend!

I have a theory...No, let's say I have a source who tells me ... that JA got the sack because she had fallen into the practice of showing off her "T" tattoo to everybody in the office.

"Whatever his pay may or may not have been, Taubman was Abramson’s successor as Washington bureau chief, not her predecessor. This error tipped the scales in the direction of the emerging novel, in which Abramson had been massively underpaid as compared to relevant men."

So how much tipping of the scales is there? $100K whether for her immediate predecessor or immediate successor is a pretty good chuck of change. Unless, of course your own mindset is that gender pay gap is a false narrative to stamp out whenever it raises its ugly little head.

Am very happy today that i am finally among the people who are writinggreat reviews about Prophet James my name is Jenny Brown am fromUSA,Georgia Atlanta i have found a way to get help but all my waysnever went right,But all went right when i came in contact with thisgreat man called Prophet James,Prophet James has brought thisunbelievable blessing to me by bringing back my lover Mark who itaught will never come back to me like he said he was leaving for goodi felt so happy when prophet James told me not to worry that heassures me that he will definitely bring back Mark and it was sounbelievable that Prophet Mark brought my lover back to my armswithin 36 hours he just told me that this is not a serious issue thathe will bring back my lover within 36 hours i was wondering how thatwould be possible but it was possible by the name of God that was whathe said and believe me within the 36 hours was a call from Markbegging me to accept him back and i was so happy that so i would becelebrating this wonderful weekend with my lover with the help ofProphet James i know a lot of us are looking for this kind of happinessand celebrating there weekend with there love ones you don't need topanic anymore Prophet James is here and you can get in contact withhim on his private email prophetjameshomeofanswer@hotmail.comcontact number +2347035825346

I thought my husband’s leaving was all my fault. After a week of separation I found out about the other woman. I stood for my marriage; I never gave up. I tried and tried to speak to him but he refused. One day he decided to talk to me and we had a good talk. The week after that he called me for lunch. After several months of separation, he moved back home after breaking off the relationship. We just celebrated the best Thanksgiving ever. We are still working on restoring our marriage but we know it will be better than ever before. My husband has thanked me for not giving up on him. I am thankful for prophet james's faithfulness and his!great spell, you can contact him via prophetjameshomeofanswer@hotmail.com or cell phone +2347035825346 (Oklahoma)

BE CAREFUL HERE NOBODY CAN HELP YOU HERE OR EVEN SUGGEST HOW YOU CAN GET YOUR EX OR LOVE BACK,ANY TESTIMONIES OF MOST SPELL CASTER HERE MUST BE IGNORE.BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE SCAM I MEAN REAL SCAM WHICH I WAS A VICTIM AND I GOT RIPPED OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE I WAS SO ANXIOUS TO GET MY WIFE BACK AFTER SHE LEFT ME FOR OVER 2 YEARS WITH MY 7 YEARS OLD SON JERRY,I HAVE APPLIED TO 7 DIFFERENT SPELL CASTER HERE AND ALL TO NO AVAIL THEY ALL ASK FOR SAME THING SEND YOUR NAME YOUR EX NAME ADDRESS AND PICTURE PHONE NUMBER ETC WHICH I DID OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND MOST OF THEM WERE FROM WEST AFRICA UNTIL I SAW A POST ABOUT MAMA ANITA SPELL AND I DECIDED TO GAVE HER MY LAST TRAIL.SHE ASK ME FOUR THINGS MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY EX MOTHER NAME AND $180 AND SAID MY EX WILL COME BACK IN 24HOURS, I HAVE PAID OVER $3000 ON SPELL CASTING AND COURIER AND NOTHING HAVE WORK FOR ME AFTER 3 DAYS I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW MUCH I HAVE LOST SO FAR SO I SAID LET ME GIVE HER A TRY SO I CALLED HER AGAIN AND SEND MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY EX MOTHER NAME AND THE $180 BECAUSE I SWEAR IT WAS MY LAST TRY SO I WAS WAITING AS SHE TOLD ME TO WAIT TILL NEXT DAY AND I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT BECAUSE I REALLY LOVE MY WIFE AND WANT HER BACK AT 9PM THAT DAY I SAW MY WIFE ON LINE ON FACE BOOK AND SHE SAID HI AT FIRST I WAS SHOCK BECAUSE SHE NEVER TALK WITH ME FOR THE PAST A YEAR AND 9 MONTH NOW I DID NOT REPLY AGAIN SHE SAID ARE YOU THERE? I QUICKLY REPLY YES AND SHE SAID CAN WE SEE TOMORROW I SAID YES AND SHE WENT OFF-LINE I WAS CONFUSED I TRY TO CHAT HER AGAIN BUT SHE WAS NO MORE ON LINE I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT AS I WAS WONDERING WHAT SHE IS GOING TO SAY, BY 7.AM THE NEXT MORNING SHE GAVE ME A MISS CALL I DECIDED NOT TO CALL BACK AS I WAS STILL ON SHOCK AGAIN SHE CALL AND I PICK SHE SAID CAN WE SEE AFTER WORK TODAY I SAID YES SO SHE END THE CALL IMMEDIATELY I GOT OFF WORK SHE CALL ME AND WE MEET AND NOW WE ARE BACK AGAIN I CALL MAMA ANITA THE NEXT DAY THANKING HER FOR WHAT SHE HAS DONE IN FACT I STILL CALL HER AND THANK HER AS MY LIFE WAS NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT MY WIFE PLEASE BE CAREFUL HERE I HAVE BEEN SCAM THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IF YOU WANT A TRUE LOVE SPELL THEN CONTACT MAMA ANITA (mama.anitatruelovespell@gmail.com)

Everyone needs to know the great love spell caster Dr Ogudugu I can’t tell how long it took me to find a trust worthy spell caster like Dr Ogudugu online, I am a very satisfied and happy person today. i have used many spell caster but none of them could bring my man back but Dr Ogudugu did. After his spell was done, My lover moved in with me. I want anyone who want his or her lover back to choose Dr Ogudugu for help cuz he is the right choice to go with. His love spell was excellent. call him +2348057266712 or Email: GREATOGUDUGU@GMAIL.COM